By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

society. That observation applies to the present problem under discussion,Innocent employees are also cought up by it. Therefore the provisions of s. 40 (5)of the security of Employment Act are void, and I construe it to be modified suchthat an employer is now obliged to reinstate this employee who is innocent andnot caught up by the provisions of s. 39 (2) and s. 40 (1) of the Act. As indicatedherein above the plaintiff in this case has satisfied the provisions of s. 39 (2) ands. 40 (1) of the security of employment Act and therefore he has to be reinstatedwith no option to the employer to refuse the reinstatement. I so order.The plaintiff’s first prayer is for a declaration that his termination was illegal andthat he was at all material times in the continued employment of the defendantcompany. That prayer is granted in view of my observation above. The secondissue that was framed at the commencement of the trial was as to whether theplaintiff is entitled to arreas of slary and other benefits from the date oftermination to the date of this judgment. In the main case (supra) Kisanga J. Heldthat the employee rendered no services to his employer. The decision of KisangaJ. was correct as it accords with s. 40(4) of the security of employment Act(which was not referred to by the learned judge) which provides:‘A reinstatement shall have affect, for the purposes ofthe payment of wages and of entitlement to severanceallowance and other retiring benefits and otherwise in relation to any benefits ofemployment, from the date of termination .but the employer maydeduct from any wages due after reinstatement, the wages in respect of the627